Question for strident capitalists...

[cosmictotem]

On (2): To considerable extent, yes, for consumer needs. I.e. demand is made equal to supply by the price rising until that is true. It of course is a continuously adjusting process. I. e. the higher price will induce more production of the goods in demand and the higher price will lower demand. Governments can and do interfere with this natural process. Change the equilibrium point between supply and demand and there are of course time lags. I.e. price can surge up as production may not be able to expand as rapid and then fall back in price when production has grown.

I have to be frank, I'm not sure why a cooperative system would want to discourage demand with pricing or any other manner if it can just apply more energy to production to meet demand.

 

[cosmictotem]

You seem to want to distribute a limited supply of "X" to the first come N people until that the X available is gone. That sends no signal at all to increase the production of X as a rising price does. The signal it sends is get up early to get near the front of line for X. Encourages people to waste time in lines instead of trying to find a more efficient (lower cost in time, and materials) way to produce X. Why would anyone want to spend time / effort trying to find more efficient way to produce, X when they get a better chance to get some X by spending more time in the "X distribution" line?

I don't want to distribute a limited supply of X and there is no expectation that supplies would be limited for any good in constant demand.

What I said was, that there are some odd goods, maybe a novelty good, that may not receive the requisite energy to keep up production. The same thing happens in a capitalist economy: not enough people want to buy a good and so the supply drops then stops. If few people are using a good produced under my proposed system, production may slow but that doesn't mean a worker can't still produce it and it doesn't mean that worker doesn't have to put in at least the minimum energy back into the system in some other activity.

If you're wondering how production will know to increase output, I'm assuming that would be based on the number of orders they are getting for a good.

I think you seem to be under the impression production would slow or cease without prices encouraging production and then
lines and scarcity would occur.

That is dependent, in any system, on how corrupt its people want to be to themselves.

I won't deny corruption was hurting production in the USSR. But who was the recipient of the damage of that corruption?: The Soviet people themselves. The people working at production.

They were doing to themselves what they claimed their economic system was doing. It seems to me if they wanted their system to work, all they had to do was come to the collective conclusion to stop trying to cheat the system, not to renounce it for capitalism.

 

[Billy T]

I don't want to distribute a limited supply of X and there is no expectation that supplies would be limited for any good in constant demand. ... If you're wondering how production will know to increase output, I'm assuming that would be based on the number of orders they are getting for a good...

That idea: "demand can always be met for producible goods, so long as the are production orders arriving at the factories" and there is no need for higher prices (or any price at all) to curb demand just firmly confirms your posting confussed BS.

For example I am sending today to all the car makers (of the world) my order for two cars of each color and style they make (one to be the spare). When I'm depressed, I drive my bright red 400 HP two seater coup, etc. And of course I don't want them getting wet, dirt splashed up n them, so I need a copy of an enclosed stadium next to my house as a garage for them. That order goes out tomorrow - I'm still working on the side colors - actually paintings by most famous living artists.

Fortunately for me, the king who decides who gets access to limited things, like high quality artist hours, married my sister - we are on great terms. He will assign the top 50 artist to paint sides of my big garage - I really like your "money is not needed idea."

 

[cosmictotem]

That idea: "demand can always be met for producible goods, so long as the are production orders arriving at the factories" and there is no need for higher prices (or any price at all) to curb demand just firmly confirms your posting confussed BS.

For example I am sending today to all the car makers (of the world) my order for two cars of each color and style they make (one to be the spare). When I'm depressed, I drive my bright red 400 HP two seater coup, etc. And of course I don't want them getting wet, dirt splashed up n them, so I need a copy of an enclosed stadium next to my house as a garage for them. That order goes out tomorrow - I'm still working on the side colors - actually paintings by most famous living artists.

Fortunately for me, the king who decides who gets access to limited things, like high quality artist hours, married my sister - we are on great terms. He will assign the top 50 artist to paint sides of my big garage - I really like your "money is not needed idea."

Okay, now I see where the misunderstanding comes from.

You think the cooperative economy is going to cater to your every minute personal preference and indulge your every extravagance.

Oh, no, no, no, no , no.

What the cooperative economy is going to do is determine a minimum standard of general comfort for the average individual based on an algorithm encompassing what generally produces comfort and contentment in the average human and, having provided that, occasionally exceed it.

If you want extra, you are perfectly allowed to add it yourself but without help from the cooperative. And if you can't create what you want yourself, you'll have to learn to be satisfied with what is granted you by cooperative labor. The point is, you're not going to use cooperative labor to indulge your extravagances. If you want a low-impact home with a kitchen, bathroom, bedroom, living room, internet, ect, the cooperative will provide it for you. If you want a castle, build it yourself. You're not going to exploit resources and human energy for something you don't really need anyway to be comfortable. It's not a system that is going to indulge your every subjective whim and conception of comfort. If you want to make extra stuff yourself to increase your personal happiness, fine.
But you're not going to enlist others for that unless the intention is that the cooperative group will benefit equally also. You're not going to make yourself somebody's boss so you can stockpile personal wealth or strip the earth of more resources than anybody else . If you produce a product with the help of the cooperative, the intention must be to distribute it amongst the cooperative or have a very good reason upfront for why the product will only be accessible to a few, like a moon landing. But if you make something all by yourself, you can keep it. I think that's a balanced approached and, more importantly, it recognizes the difference between individual production and group production.

 

[Billy T]

. ... You think the cooperative economy is going to cater to your every minute personal preference and indulge your every extravagance. Oh, no, no, no, no , no. ...

So there is some system which will determine what are "extravances" - How do I get to be member of that commission, or if a computer program, on the working group that writes the program?

In a price market system you work to gain "coupons" which you can freely exchange for item A instead of item B if you value A more than B even though almost all have values reversed. (A < B). For example the if I want to get my protein from only yogurt and eat no animal tissue I can. No committee or computer program is deciding for me that x gram/week of meat are good for you, very few have your "personal preferences," so you can collect your allotted meat at the distribution center.

The problem without using earned coupons to get what you prefer (and have coupons for) is much worse when speaking of one-of-kind items or very limited numbers compared to huge demand items (front row, center seat at play or baseball signed by Mickey Mantle, Picasso painting, etc.) How does the allocation committee or computer program decide if I or Tom gets the one-of-a-kind item?

Also some jobs needed are not very desirable - how are they assigned by the committee /program?

What the cooperative economy is going to do is determine a minimum standard of general comfort for the average individual based on an algorithm encompassing what generally produces comfort and contentment in the average human

I guess that yogurt is not even going to be produced as not necessary for average human's comfort. I don't like your "no signals sent to producers by price rising system." - The producers make what the average human needs for comfort - you have no choices - the system knows best. - Shut up and eat your meat.

BTW, will I at least get a choice of the external siding color on my system minimum standard, but free, "cracker box" house?

 

[cosmictotem]

So there is some system which will determine what are "extravances" - How do I get to be member of that commission, or if a computer program, on the working group that writes the program?

In a price market system you work to gain "coupons" which you can freely exchange for item A instead of item B if you value A more than B even though almost all have values reversed. (A < B). For example the if I want to get my protein from only yogurt and eat no animal tissue I can. No committee or computer program is deciding for me that x gram/week of meat are good for you, very few have your "personal preferences," so you can collect your allotted meat at the distribution center.

That's not as much of a problem as you suspect.

In my proposed system, instead of money, there are "Supply Packages".

Supply Packages can come in Day Units, Week Units or Month Units. And, for lack of a better word in a non-monetary system, let's call him / her, the consumer, can pick and choose whether they want their supply packages in a Day Unit, a Week Unit or a Month Unit but they cannot exceed a Month Unit Package for a single month. Each of these units are comprised of supplies, let's use food for an example, that will meet the nutritional requirements for the naturally large person (just to make sure all people will be covered nutritionally) for either a day, a week or a month. And the citizen can pick and choose and swap out any smaller supply package units they choose within any larger unit as long as the units do not exceed the units set for a single month. So that way you can pick and choose your meals based on your preferences.

There will also be what are called "Meal Units" which are single items which can be swapped out with other meal units that comprise a Day Unit to provide even more nutritional customization in accordance with a citizen's preferences. So if you want carrots, and a Day Unit contains potatoes, you can swap the potatoes for the carrots. Or if you want yogurt, and part of the breakfast meal unit within a Day Unit is peaches, you can swap the peaches for yogurt.

The final size of these Supply Packages will not be subject to the whims of a commission or someone with access to the computer program but to the biological nutritional values determined by science to adequately support the daily functions and health of the human body for a Day, a Week or a Month.

And the principle, to varying degrees dependent upon the shelf life of different goods can be applied to other industry products. Obviously, you won't be able to get a new computer every month and you will have to show your current computer has some functional degradation to replace it. But, within reason, you can replace things.

But it's important to remember, if you want more food, for example, you are completely allowed to produce food through a garden by your own hand to supplement your monthly food supply. You just can sell anything.

There's two reasons why you can't sell anything to anyone:

1.) It discourages the hoarding and ill-gotten collection of cooperatively produced goods for resale. In other words, skimming of extra goods off the top for resale on a black market.

2.) It discourages the formation of underground cooperative production markets for the sale of items, which would be taking cooperative energy away from the system.

So you get caught selling anything, anywhere, you're in trouble.

The problem without using earned coupons to get what you prefer (and have coupons for) is much worse when speaking of one-of-kind items or very limited numbers compared to huge demand items (front row, center seat at play or baseball signed by Mickey Mantle, Picasso painting, etc.) How does the allocation committee or computer program decide if I or Tom gets the one-of-a-kind item?

Simple. The way it solves everything. You can give the item away but you can't sell it. The primary goal of the cooperative system is not to eliminate every single minor inequality. As I said, if something gets produced in a low number cooperatively, the goods go out on a first come, first served basis. And if something gets produced in a low number by an individual, they can give it to whomever they want. They just can't sell it.

You can't sell. You cannot sell. Once you start selling, you're undermining the cooperative system. If you and a group of people want to entirely renounce your provisions and citizenship from the system and engage in a buy and sell economy off by yourselves in your own nation, that's fine. You're perfectly free to do that and the system would even encourage you. But you're not going to be allowed to impose those kind of rules on resources and products within a non-monetary cooperative system. Both kinds of systems must be kept completely self-contained and separate.

 

[cosmictotem]

You just can sell anything.

That was supposed to read "You just can't sell anything" in the above post of mine.

 

[iceaura]

"You have no basis and no precident in nature for your claim to be recognized. If you could buy up and monopolize all the water sources on the planet, should all be obligated to pay a toll to you for access?"
Nope. We have artificial laws that prevent monopolies.

Well, we should - any system using capitalized market exchange to manage distribution of goods and services needs to prevent or regulate monopolies, and this will of necessity involve redistributing resources that have piled up due to market defects and the nature of money.

But actually establishing and enforcing such laws has been proved difficult. Missoula, Montana, for example, is now attempting to prevent the purchase of its privately owned and monopolized city water supply by private interests known to charge exorbitant tolls for access to resources they own. The legal fight is difficult and expensive, and not certain of success.

 

[cosmictotem]

Well, we should - any system using capitalized market exchange to manage distribution of goods and services needs to prevent or regulate monopolies, and this will of necessity involve redistributing resources that have piled up due to market defects and the nature of money.

But actually establishing and enforcing such laws has been proved difficult. Missoula, Montana, for example, is now attempting to prevent the purchase of its privately owned and monopolized city water supply by private interests known to charge exorbitant tolls for access to resources they own. The legal fight is difficult and expensive, and not certain of success.

And wasn't there something out in Colorado where water companies were fighting private citizens' right to trap rainwater?

It's just much easier to nip it in the bud before companies and individuals start stockpiling exorbitant resources for themselves by having a policy that regulates how much resources citizens get based on our physical requirements rather than our desire to accumulate wealth.

 

[billvon]

And wasn't there something out in Colorado where water companies were fighting private citizens' right to trap rainwater?

Nope. That is the government - the same entity you want to trust to provide you with only what you need.

It's just much easier to nip it in the bud before companies and individuals start stockpiling exorbitant resources for themselves by having a policy that regulates how much resources citizens get based on our physical requirements rather than our desire to accumulate wealth.

Right - and governments now have that policy to prevent people from accumulating too much water. That way they can control the water.

 

[cosmictotem]

Nope. That is the government - the same entity you want to trust to provide you with only what you need.

Right - and governments now have that policy to prevent people from accumulating too much water. That way they can control the water.

But let's remember we are still talking about a government still under the influence of a monetary system that enables and has many of its same mechanisms, considerations and consequences, which I have stated clearly is part of the problem. So it's not entirely "the same entity" I'm talking about. Money and business have made inroads into government and, in many cases, despite often being at odds, they often reinforce the worst of each other.

 

[Billy T]

... There will also be what are called "Meal Units" which are single items which can be swapped out with other meal units that comprise a Day Unit to provide even more nutritional customization in accordance with a citizen's preferences. So if you want carrots, and a Day Unit contains potatoes, you can swap the potatoes for the carrots. Or if you want yogurt, and part of the breakfast meal unit within a Day Unit is peaches, you can swap the peaches for yogurt. ...

OK, you allow direct barter, but not efficient value coupons. I. e. If you want to swap A for B, you must find some one who wants to swap B for A. - A very cumbersome system compared to widely accepted "value coupons."

Not only that but value coupons let you get some today for your "A" hold them until next month when you can use them to get some "B" you only need and want then. Barter is an immediate exchange only. There is no way, for example, production risks can be "hedged" or shared as there is when value coupons exist.

You seem to think that production of Meal Units and larger Supply Package will be regulated as to size, content and quality and efficiently produced on large scale (I hope) not inefficient small scale. E. g. Hundreds of acres growing corn, etc. for cattle fatting in Chicago feed lots still and then in slaughter houses converted into (dried?) beef that can be included in the Supply Packages at low number of man hours required to make per pound of beef, not many dozen times more labor intensive than now.

Well that will not work with out some way (value coupons) to compensate the labors for their efforts that they can use later as various needs /wants arise. Likewise, how could new drugs be developed, that may fail to work after 100,000 man hours of research and testing be done?

What you are advocating (probably without knowning so) is return to life styles and production methods of about year 1000 in Europe. I. e. some local Lord will tell the peasants what they can and can not do and where they will work, etc. to have a subsistence existence while he keeps his tax collectors and friends are well provided for (as is possible) from the fruits of their labor.

 

[cosmictotem]

OK, you allow direct barter, but not efficient value coupons. I. e. If you want to swap A for B, you must find some one who wants to swap B for A. - A very cumbersome system compared to widely accepted "value coupons."

No. First of all, there's no need for barter between citizens. You can make all exchanges on the spot at the depot centers. You don't have to walk away with anything you don't want. If they don't have what you want that day or at that center, any leftover supply packages will carry over to the next day or next month. You can try again for the good you are looking for tomorrow or whenever or at another depot center.

Not only that but value coupons let you get some today for your "A" hold them until next month when you can use them to get some "B" you only need and want then.

You don't have to take away all you're entitled to for the month from the depot centers. You can let any leftover provisions carry over to the next month.

Likewise, how could new drugs be developed, that may fail to work after 100,000 man hours of research and testing be done?

People testing drugs that fail to work still get paid in our system now. People in my proposed system would still receive their supplies. Obviously, as in our current system, if it is taking too long to produce results, the whole undertaking would be questioned and perhaps discontinued.
No different than now.

What you are advocating (probably without knowning so) is return to life styles and production methods of about year 1000 in Europe. I. e. some local Lord will tell the peasants what they can and can not do and where they will work

People would be allowed to provide their energy back into the system wherever they wanted.

There is no need for value coupons.

 

[billvon]

But let's remember we are still talking about a government still under the influence of a monetary system that enables and has many of its same mechanisms, considerations and consequences, which I have stated clearly is part of the problem. So it's not entirely "the same entity" I'm talking about. Money and business have made inroads into government and, in many cases, despite often being at odds, they often reinforce the worst of each other.

Money generally means influence in government. Influence comes in many forms - money, favor, power, position. You have not proposed anything that would remove the other three, and the "pigs that are more equal than others" would still get most of the steak, and the gold watches, and the water. For the good of the country, of course.

 

[cosmictotem]

Money generally means influence in government. Influence comes in many forms - money, favor, power, position. You have not proposed anything that would remove the other three, and the "pigs that are more equal than others" would still get most of the steak, and the gold watches, and the water. For the good of the country, of course.

And why do people normally scramble for those other three? Because money is required to ensure one's survival and money is usually the reason for wanting the other three. And if you think about it, money is a lot easier to steal than if you have to directly steal the resources you are looking to spend that money on. So money encourages corrupt government.

What is position going to get you in my proposed cooperative system? It will be in its constitution that members of government will get no more personal resources than any other citizen and that won't be subject to amendment. Certainly, they will have access to the resources to do their jobs but, since there will be no money or elections, there will also be very little reason to provide favors or pay for access to power. If you want to work in government, all you'll have to do is go through the training and start working in the area of your expertise wherever there is a needed position to fill on a first come first appointed basis. It's not like you'll be able to overturn the laws, to change the system. The system's fundamental laws are locked in. Any alterations must be made with an eye toward maintaining the fundamental operations of a cooperative economy. Any other ideas must be relegated to separate experiments conducted outside the cooperative system without subjecting any of its citizens to its consequences.

 

[billvon]

No. First of all, there's no need for barter between citizens.

Let's say the government decides you can have one gold watch. You want three. The government decides that three is hoarding - so you cannot get that from a depot center. So you save your potatoes and trade with someone who has one and doesn't want it. Barter.

Or let's say your family is really good at farming and wants to garden more. So you make a deal with your elderly neighbor - you let us have your land and we'll give you some of our produce. Just don't tell the government - because we're not allowed to have more than five acres. Again, barter.

 

[billvon]

And why do people normally scramble for those other three? Because money is required to ensure one's survival and money is usually the reason for wanting the other three.

No. People want power even when they have plenty of money.

What is position going to get you in my proposed cooperative system? It will be in its constitution that members of government will get no more personal resources than any other citizen and that won't be subject to amendment.

Decisions will get made that benefit some people and harm others. That's what laws are. Power gets you the ability to pass laws that benefit some - and you then improve your position with those people, who then support you (power.)

Certainly, they will have access to the resources to do their jobs

Yep. And those required resources will grow with time. Important government officials will need their own aircraft - for the good of the country, of course.

but, since there will be no money or elections, there will also be very little reason to provide favors or pay for access to power. If you want to work in government, all you'll have to do is go through the training and start working in the area of your expertise wherever there is a needed position to fill on a first come first appointed basis.

Great! So when your father is about to retire, he calls you and tells you "I'm going to retire in one day; get in line." So you get the job - and of course you owe him.

It's not like you'll be able to overturn the laws, to change the system. The system's fundamental laws are locked in. Any alterations must be made with an eye toward maintaining the fundamental operations of a cooperative economy. Any other ideas must be relegated to separate experiments conducted outside the cooperative system without subjecting any of its citizens to its consequences.

It sounds like your proposal isn't really for a different type of government - it's for a different type of people. People who do not exhibit greed, or envy, or the desire for power. People who do not want to be the best provider they can for themselves and their families. People who do not want to change the world, or change the way things are done. And that's a great goal - but outside of eugenics there's not much way to accomplish that.

 

[cosmictotem]

Let's say the government decides you can have one gold watch. You want three. The government decides that three is hoarding - so you cannot get that from a depot center. So you save your potatoes and trade with someone who has one and doesn't want it. Barter.

The government doesn't really decide whether the people can have more gold watches. The people are the ones that form cooperatives for the manufacturing of different goods. If enough want more gold watches to be available, they can simply request the government to gain access to the facilities where watches can be manufactured. The government would mostly monitor the process to make sure everything is being done according to the cooperative system.

Also your scenario is a bit contrived. You claim your person who wants another gold watch gets it from someone who doesn't want the watch in return for potatoes. Does the person with the watch need potatoes? If they already didn't want the watch, why didn't they just give it away before? Are they starving for potatoes under a system that provides them enough food to eat?

It seems to me you are posing scenarios that are partially born out of a monetary system themselves, such as we have today, and then trying to impose them on my moneyless, cooperative system.

Or let's say your family is really good at farming and wants to garden more. So you make a deal with your elderly neighbor - you let us have your land and we'll give you some of our produce. Just don't tell the government - because we're not allowed to have more than five acres. Again, barter.

That's another contrived scenario. After all, how big is your family that five acres can't provide you enough food? And why would you want to produce more food when it would be illegal to sell it? It seems to me, a family attempting to produce that much food would be doing so in order to resell it as they could not possibly consume it all themselves. And if they just wanted to give it away to provide more food to the collective, they could do so legally on state monitored farms. So, in addition to not making any sense under my proposed system, that family would probably be in violation of the law.

 

[cosmictotem]

No. People want power even when they have plenty of money.

What will they do with power in my cooperative system? It can't get them any more resources than anyone else. No one's support can keep them in power longer than they are allowed.

Decisions will get made that benefit some people and harm others. That's what laws are. Power gets you the ability to pass laws that benefit some - and you then improve your position with those people, who then support you (power.)

Never happen in my system. The way for people to improve their position is freely available through cooperation in which many will share a common interest and all will benefit. Besides, there is no position that requires someone's favor to improve or position of power that requires support.

And why would all this be happening in a system that is providing everyone with what they need and gives them the opportunity to experiment outside the system if they are unhappy with it and as long as they do not subject anyone else unwilling to participate in their experiment?

It seems to me, it would ultimately be the want of money that would be driving this behavior and the ability to amass wealth beyond that of others. But that is not something that would be allowed in my proposed system and, more importantly, all these behaviors you project onto my system are currently problems in the system you are defending over it.

First remove the speck from your eye before you go pointing to the one in someone else's eye.

 

[billvon]

The government doesn't really decide whether the people can have more gold watches.

You said they did. You said if there were enough to go around everyone got one - but if not, some got them and some didn't. So yes, in your system, the government decides who has gold watches and how many. (And if everyone wants a gold watch but no one wants to build one, then there are none at all.)

The people are the ones that form cooperatives for the manufacturing of different goods. If enough want more gold watches to be available, they can simply request the government to gain access to the facilities where watches can be manufactured.

Who builds the specialized watchmaking facilities? Who works there? If only three people show up to build watches, do they get the watches or do they go to someone else because the government says so?

Also your scenario is a bit contrived.

If you think that's contrived you've never filed a tax return or set up a 401k!

You claim your person who wants another gold watch gets it from someone who doesn't want the watch in return for potatoes. Does the person with the watch need potatoes?

Maybe, maybe not. If they do, great. If they don't, either the guy has to keep looking, or he has to trade him something else he values. Perhaps a few labor units (LU's) redeemable later for his labor.

If they already didn't want the watch, why didn't they just give it away before?

Well, perhaps they really like French Fries, and want more potatoes than the government allows them to have from the depot.

Are they starving for potatoes under a system that provides them enough food to eat?

No, they are not starving - they just like fries, and they are sick of the government-approved balanced diet that they can get from the depot.

It seems to me you are posing scenarios that are partially born out of a monetary system themselves, such as we have today, and then trying to impose them on my moneyless, cooperative system.

No, I am posing scenarios that will come about because people want things like french fries and gold watches even if the government decides they don't need them. People are not stupid, and will go to great lengths to get what they want. Again, look at the black market in the old USSR.

That's another contrived scenario. After all, how big is your family that five acres can't provide you enough food?

Your family is fine - they just want more barley because your brother makes really good beer, and you need a _lot_ of barley to make good beer. And the government beer is pretty bad. (And since your beer is good, your neighbors appreciate a case or two in return for extra potatoes, gold watches or land.)

And why would you want to produce more food when it would be illegal to sell it?

No one's talking about selling it. We are just talking about noticing that your family has a few extra bottles of beer, and your neighbor has an extra gold watch - then rectifying that problem.

It seems to me, a family attempting to produce that much food would be doing so in order to resell it as they could not possibly consume it all themselves. And if they just wanted to give it away to provide more food to the collective, they could do so legally on state monitored farms. So, in addition to not making any sense under my proposed system, that family would probably be in violation of the law.

So you would do what? Arrest them for growing too much food? Sounds like in that case a few bottles (or cases) to the local police force would not be a bad idea.